(26-02-2014 01:04 AM)donotwant Wrote: Is his quote which I presented above stupid?

Yes it was a stupid statement but no C.S. Lewis was not stupid. As Bucky said his wife had just recently died and he was very much in love with her, all his friends had spent years browbeating him into rejoining the cult so when he did finally jump back in he went all in and went ultra-presuppositional with 1 caveat. CS is the only person to make the connection that what Jesus is claimed to have said is inherently Immoral unless he was God incarnate and knew the end of the world was imminent. However he didn't take the next step and count how many years have past since those statements were supposedly made.

So what jesus said was moral if he was a God? That's extremely stupid.
God would be the cause of the end of the world in the first place.

As for Lewis if somebody who says stupid things is not stupid then what does he have to do to be stupid?

(26-02-2014 03:02 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: Yes it was a stupid statement but no C.S. Lewis was not stupid. As Bucky said his wife had just recently died and he was very much in love with her, all his friends had spent years browbeating him into rejoining the cult so when he did finally jump back in he went all in and went ultra-presuppositional with 1 caveat. CS is the only person to make the connection that what Jesus is claimed to have said is inherently Immoral unless he was God incarnate and knew the end of the world was imminent. However he didn't take the next step and count how many years have past since those statements were supposedly made.

So what jesus said was moral if he was a God? That's extremely stupid.
God would be the cause of the end of the world in the first place.

As for Lewis if somebody who says stupid things is not stupid then what does he have to do to be stupid?

Body of work begs to differ. If you are asking is his religious stance stupid then the answer is yes, with a few reasons as to why he took it all of them emotional based rather than logical. But saying one of the most prolific authors of the first half of the 20th century is stupid is just demonstrably wrong.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(26-02-2014 03:07 AM)donotwant Wrote: So what jesus said was moral if he was a God? That's extremely stupid.
God would be the cause of the end of the world in the first place.

As for Lewis if somebody who says stupid things is not stupid then what does he have to do to be stupid?

Body of work begs to differ. If you are asking is his religious stance stupid then the answer is yes, with a few reasons as to why he took it all of them emotional based rather than logical. But saying one of the most prolific authors of the first half of the 20th century is stupid is just demonstrably wrong.

So smart people can say stupid things all right.
But what does stupid mean then? A stupid person is the one who never says things which are not stupid? Or says stupid things more often then half of the time?

If CS Lewis had remained an atheist I bet he would be regarded by most of the people here as the smartest, most famous atheist in human history. (Apart from GK Chesterton, Peter Hitchens, Alister McGrath, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Malcolm Muggeridge, Anne Rice, Anthony Flew, Edward Fesser, Francis Collins, .etc. etc.)

I'm familiar with Solzhenitsyn btw he fails.
Mcgrath is nothing special.
Anthony Flew is a deist not a theist.
Anne Rice definitely doesn't believe in the bible.
Peter is failbrother of Christopher.
Chesterton is downright stupid.
Malcolm Muggeridge is just a stupid spy who had nothing to do after the war.
Edward Fesser is just a regular guy.
Francis Collins is a cool scientist I agree. I can't comprehend how he can fail so much when it comes to religion.

Quote:My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.

What about an evil god?

Cruelty and justice revolve around our treatment of conscious beings and the empathy or lack of empathy we feel toward that treatment. I don't see how you can apply these words to the universe.

"What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
Well sir, you were comparing it to a universe that is just.
In your straight line and crooked line example, the line itself remained, but the quality or shape of the line changed.

If your argument against god depends upon the world being unjust, then you have succeeded. The world is an unjust place. This is why we created the rule of law, so that we can bring some measure of justice to a place that has none.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results